Siloam<\/em> ] Satisfactorily identified with Birket Silwn<\/em> in the lower Tyropoean valley, S. E. of the hill of Zion. This is probably the Siloah of Neh 3:15<\/span> and the Shiloah of Isa 8:6<\/span>. ‘The tower in Siloam’ (Luk 13:4<\/span>) was very possibly a building connected with the water; perhaps part of an aqueduct.<\/p>\n which is by interpretation<\/em> ] Literally, which is<\/em> interpreted<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Sent<\/em> ] This is an admissible interpretation; but the original meaning is rather Sending<\/em>, i.e. outlet of waters, ‘the waters of Shiloah that go softly’ (Isa 8:6<\/span>). S. John sees in the word ‘ nomen et omen<\/em> ’ of the man’s cure. Perhaps he sees also that this water from the rock is an image of Him who was sent<\/em> from the Father.<\/p>\n and came seeing<\/em> ] ‘Came,’ not back to Christ, who had probably gone away meanwhile ( Joh 9:12<\/em><\/span>), but to his own home, as would appear from what follows. Has any poet ever attempted to describe this man’s emotions on first seeing the world in which he had lived so long?<\/p>\n “The scene in which the man returns seeing and is questioned by his neighbours, is vividly described. So too is the whole of that which follows, when the Pharisees come upon the stage. We may accept it with little short of absolute credence. If the opponents of miracles could produce a single Jewish document, in which any event, known not to have happened, was described with so much minuteness and verisimilitude, then it would be easier to agree with them.” S. pp. 162, 163.<\/p>\n Wash in the pool – <\/B>In the fountains.<\/P> Of Siloam – <\/B>See the notes at Luk 13:4<\/span>.<\/P> By interpretation, Sent – <\/B>From the Hebrew verb to send perhaps because it was regarded as a blessing sent or given by God. Why Jesus sent him to wash there is not known. It is clear that the waters had no efficacy themselves to open the eyes of a blind man, but it is probable that he directed him to go there to test his obedience, and to see whether he was disposed to obey him in a case where he could not see the reason of it. An instance somewhat similar occurs in the case of Naaman, the Syrian leper, 2Ki 5:10<\/span>. The proud Syrian despised the direction; the tremble blind man obeyed and was healed. This case shows us that we should obey the commands of God, however unmeaning or mysterious they may appear. God has always a reason for all that he directs us to do, and our faith and willingness to obey him are often tried when we can see little of the reason of his requirements. In the first edition of these notes it was remarked that the word Siloam is from the same verb as Shiloh in Gen 49:10<\/span>. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah – until Shiloh (that is, the Sent of God: the Messiah) come, and that John in this remark probably had reference to this prophecy. This was incorrect: and there is no evidence that John in this passage had reference to that prophecy, or that this fountain was emblematic of the Messiah. The original words Siloam and Shiloh are from different roots and mean different things. The former, Siloam <\/span> Shiloach, is derived from <\/span> shaalach (to send); the latter, Shiloh <\/span> Shiyloh, means rest or quiet, and was given to the Messiah, probably, because he would bring rest that is, he would be the prince of peace. Compare Isa 9:6<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Joh 9:7<\/span><\/p>\n Go wash in the pool of Siloam.<\/em><\/p>\n –Rounding the southern end of Ophel, the southeast span of Moriah, you reach this famous pool. It is fifty-two feet long and eighteen feet wide, some piers, like flying buttresses, standing on its north side, while part of a column rises in the middle of it. These are the remains of an old church, built over it 1,300 years ago, or a monastery of the twelfth century. The miracle invested the pool with such peculiar sacredness that baths were erected under the ancient church, to let the sick have the benefit of the wondrous stream. You go down eight ancient stone steps to reach the water, which is used by the people for drinking, washing their not over clean linen, and for bathing. Everything around is dilapidated. At the north end a small tunnel opens in the rock, bringing the water from the spring of the Virgin, which lies 1,700 feet higher up the valley. This ancient engineering work is about two feet wide, and from two to sixteen feet in height, with a branch cut due west from it to a shallow basin within the line of the ancient walls, where a round shaft more than forty feet deep has been sunk to reach it. On the top of this a great chamber hewn in the rock, with a flight of steps leading down to it, made it possible for the citizens, by covering and hiding the spring outside, to cut off the supply of water from an enemy, while themselves, by means of this striking arrangement, enjoying it in safety without leaving their defences. A notable discovery connected with the cutting of the main tunnel was made in 1880 by a youth while wading up its mouth. Losing his footing, he noticed, as he was picking himself up, some letters cut in the rocky side, which proved to be an inscription left by the workmen when they had finished their great undertaking. From this it appears that they began at both ends, but as engineering was hardly at its best 3,000 years ago their course was very far from being exactly straight, windings of more than two hundred yards, like the course of a river, marking their work. There are several short branches showing where the excavators found themselves going in a wrong direction, and abruptly stopped, to resume work in a truer line, when at last they met they proved to be a little on one side of each other and had to connect their excavations by a short side cutting. Prof. Sayce thinks that this undertaking dates from about the eight century B.C., and Prof. Muhlan refers it to the time of Hezekiah, while others think it in part, at least, a relic of the early inhabitants of Jerusalem before David. The depth of the tunnel below the surface, at its lowest, is one hundred and fifty feet. The slope is very small, so that the water must always have flowed with a gentle leisure from the spring to the pool Isa 8:6<\/span>). The remains of four other basins have been discovered, which were apparently once connected with the pool, and a little way from it down the valley, is an ancient Lower Pool, but now has its bottom overgrown with trees, the overflow from the higher pool having for centuries trickled past it instead of filling it. This is known as the Red Pool–from the colour of its soil–and is famous for an old mulberry tree saidto mark the spot where Isaiah was sawn asunder by Manasseh. The Virgins Well, from which the whole supply comes, lies at the bottom of two flights of broken stone steps–thirty in all–and has the glory of being the only spring rising in the Temple Mount. The taste of the water is very unpleasant, from its having filtered through the vast mass of foul rubbish on which the city stands, and which has been soaked by the sewage of many centuries. The sides of the tunnel are covered to a height of about three feet with thin red cement, very hard and full of pounded potsherds. The bed is covered with a black slimy deposit two or three inches thick, which makes the water still worse at Siloam than at the Virgins Well. Still from time to time water carriers come to fill their skins, and women with their great jars on their shoulders. Yet Siloam must have been far livelier than now in olden times, when a fine church rose over the spring and pilgrims bathed in the great tank beneath it. Already in the days of Christ, perhaps from the thought of the healing powers of the pool as issuing from Moriah, it must have been the custom to wash in it, else the blind man would hardly have been directed in so few words to do so. (C. Geikie, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Which is by interpretation, Sent.<\/strong>–By a solemn and daily libation, the fount of Siloam had figured during the recent feast as the emblem of theocratic favours and the pledge of all Messianic blessings. This rite harmonized with the Old Testament, which had already contrasted this humble fountain with the brute force of the foes of the theocracy Isa 8:7<\/span>). We have seen that Jesus applied to Himself the theocratic symbols of the feast; why should He not in the present instance also express by an act what He had hitherto declared in words. By adding to the real blindness, which He alone could cure, that artificial and symbolic blindness which the waters of Siloam were to remove, He declared in fact: What Siloam effects typically I accomplish in reality. Perhaps it is by the symbolic part given to Siloam that the explanation Sent of the Evangelist must be explained. In a philologic point of view, the correctness of Johns translation is not disputed, and the origin of the name has been explained by the circumstance that the water of the pool was sent<\/em> from the distant spring of the Virgin, or because springs are regarded in the East as gifts of God. In any case, Israelite consciousness was struck by the fact that the spring flowed from the Temple hill, the residence of Jehovah, and had from the prophetic era attached to this water, a Messianic signification. It was undoubtedly this relation, with which the mind of the whole nation was penetrated, that John meant to bring forward in the parenthesis. Go to Siloam (the typically sent), to cleanse thyself from what causes thine artificial blindness; come by faith to He (the really Sent), who alone can cure thy blindness, both physical and moral. (F. Godet, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The way of faith is simple<\/strong><\/p>\n Go wash in the pool. Go to the pool, and wash the clay into it. Any boy can wash his eyes. The task was simplicity itself. So is the gospel as plain as a pikestaff. You have not to perform twenty genuflections or posturings, each one peculiar, nor have you to go to school to learn a dozen languages, each one more difficult than the other. No, the saving deed is one and simple. Believe and live. Trust, trust Christ; rely upon Him, rest in Him. Accept His work upon the cross as the atonement for your sin, His righteousness as your acceptance before God, His person as the delight of your soul. (C. H. Spurgeon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Faith and obedience<\/strong><\/p>\n He obeyed Christ blindly. He looked not upon Siloam with Syrian eyes as Naaman did upon Jordan, but, passing by the unlikelihood of a cure by such means, he believeth and doth as he was bidden. His blind obedience made him see. Let God be obeyed readily without reasoning or wrangling, and success shall not be wanting. (J. Tramp.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 7<\/span>. Siloam<\/B><\/I>] Called also Shiloah, Silos<\/I>, or Siloa<\/I>, was a fountain under the walls of Jerusalem, towards the east, between the city and the brook Kidron<\/I>. Calmet<\/I> thinks that this was the same with En-rogel<\/I>, or the fuller’s fountain<\/I>, which is mentioned in Jos 15:7<\/span>; Jos 18:16<\/span>; in 2Sa 17:17<\/span>; and in 1Kg 1:9<\/span>. Its waters were collected in a great reservoir for the use of the city; and a stream from it supplied the pool of Bethesda.<\/P> <\/P> By interpretation, SENT.<\/B><\/I>] From the Hebrew shalach, he sent<\/I>: either because it was looked upon as a gift sent<\/I> from God, for the use of the city; or because its waters were directed<\/I> or sent<\/I> by canals or pipes, into different quarters, for the same purpose. Some think there is an allusion here to Ge 49:10<\/span>; that this fountain was a type<\/I> of Shiloh<\/I>, the Christ, the SENT of God<\/I>; and that it was to direct the man’s mind to the accomplishment of the above prophecy that our Lord sent him to this fountain. This supposition does not appear very solid. The Turks have this fountain still in great veneration, and think the waters of it are good for diseases of the eyes. Lightfoot says that the spring of Siloam discharged itself by a double stream into a twofold pool-the upper was called shiloach <\/I>– the lower, shelach<\/I>; the one signifying , sent<\/I>, the latter, fleeces<\/I>; and that our Lord marked this point so particularly, to inform the blind man that it was not to Shelach, but to Shiloach, that he must go to wash his eyes. These two pools seem to be referred to in Isa 7:23<\/span>; Isa 22:9<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n He doth not only anoint his eyes, but sendeth him also to wash in the pool of Siloam.<\/B> We read of this pool, Neh 3:15<\/span>; and we are told, that it was a fountain which sprang out from Mount Zion. It should seem, that there was a brook of that name, which supplied part of the city with water, Isa 8:6<\/span>. Some think they have also found a mystery in this name, because it signifieth <\/P> sent; <\/B>and think that it hath an allusion to Shiloh, which was the Messias, mentioned Gen 49:10<\/span>. The name is plainly an old name, as appears from the place I noted out of Nehemiah; probably given to it anciently, in acknowledgment of the mercy of God given them, in sending them such a brook, or rivulet, from those mountains, so commodious for that great city: or, because (as some think) the water did not run always, but at certain times, as it were sent of God. We read of nothing medicinal in this water, only, as a probation of the blind mans faith and obedience, it pleased our Lord to send the blind man to wash himself there; as of old Naaman the Syrian was sent to wash in Jordan. He went, and the evangelist, to let us see that true faith joined with sincere obedience never faileth the expectation of them that exercise it, lets us know that he returned seeing. <\/P> <\/p>\n 7. Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, .. . Sent,<\/B> c.(See 2Ki 5:10<\/span>2Ki 5:14<\/span>). As the prescribedaction was purely symbolical in its design, so in connection with itthe Evangelist notices the symbolical name of the pool as in thiscase bearing testimony to him who was sent<\/I> to do what it onlysymbolized.<\/I> (See Isa 8:6<\/span>,where this same pool is used figuratively to denote “the streamsthat make glad the city of God,” and which, humble though theybe, betoken a present God of Israel<\/I>.)<\/P><\/p>\n And said unto him, go wash in the Pool of Siloam<\/strong>,…. A fountain of this name is called Siloah, Isa 8:6<\/span>, and according to the Jewish writers, sometimes Gihon e; and this, they say f, was without Jerusalem, though near unto it: hither the Jews went at the feast of tabernacles g, and drew water with great rejoicing, and brought it, and poured it on the altar; the waters thereof also the priests drank for digestion, when they had eaten too much flesh h; and this was likewise made use of to wash in, in case of uncleanness. It is said i of Benaiah, one of David’s worthies, that<\/p>\n “one day he set his foot upon a dead toad, and he went down to Siloah, and broke the pieces of hail, (or ice congealed together,) and dipped himself.”<\/p>\n This fountain was to the south west of Jerusalem; and was, as Josephus says, sweet and large k; and from it were two watercourses, upper and lower, 2Ch 32:30<\/span>, which ran into two pools; the one was called the Pool of Siloam, which may be the same that Josephus l calls the Pool of Solomon, and is here meant, and which was situated on the south of the wall of Sion, towards the east; and the other was called the Pool of Shelah, and which, in Ne 3:15<\/span>, is called in our translation, and in some others, the Pool of Siloah. Now both the fountain, and the pool, were without the city; and yet we read of a Siloah in the midst of the city m. This blind man was sent, not to wash himself all over, but only his face or eyes; and so the Arabic and Persic versions read, “wash thy face”; the clay from it: this may be emblematical of the grace of the Spirit, sometimes signified by water and washing, which accompanying the word, makes it effectual to the salvation of souls:<\/p>\n which is by interpretation sent<\/strong>. This interpretation of the word Siloam does not determine which of the pools is meant, the upper or lower, “Siloah” or “Shelah”, since they both come from the word , which signifies to “send”; but by the flexion of the word, the upper pool “Siloah” seems plainly intended, which was not so forenamed, as Nonus suggests, from the sending this man thither, but rather from the sending forth its waters, which flowed softly and gently for the supply of the city of Jerusalem, Some think Christ gave this interpretation of it with a view to himself, as the sent of God, the true Messiah: but the words seem not to be the words of Christ, but of the evangelist, who interprets this word; wherefore they are left out in the Syriac and Persic versions, where such an interpretation was needless.<\/p>\n He went his way therefore and washed, and came seeing<\/strong>: he did as he was commanded; he was obedient to the directions and orders of Christ, though they seemed so unlikely to answer the end; and yet that was brought about through the divine power of Christ, which appeared the more in making use of such unlikely means.<\/p>\n e Targum, Jarchi, Kimchi, & Solomon ben Melech in 1 Kings i. 39. f Jarchi & Bartenora in Misn. Succa, c. 4. sect. 9. g Misn. Succa, c. 4. sect. 9. h Abot R. Nathan, c. 35. fol. 8. 3. i Targum in 1 Chron. xi. 22. k De Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 4. sect. 1. l Ib. l. 6. c. 6. vel. l. 5. c. 4. sect. 1. m T. Hieros. Chagigah, fol. 76. 1.<\/p>\n Wash <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist middle imperative second person singular of <\/SPAN><\/span>, later form of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to wash, especially parts of the body. Certainly bathing the eyes is good for eye trouble, and yet we are not to infer that the cure was due to the use of the clay or to the washing.<\/P> In the pool of Siloam <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The word <\/SPAN><\/span> (from <\/SPAN><\/span>, to swim) is a common word for swimming-pool, in N.T. only here and John 5:2<\/span>; John 5:7<\/span>. The name Siloam<\/I> is Hebrew (Isa 8:6<\/span>) and means “sent” (<\/SPAN><\/span>, perfect passive participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>). It was situated south of the temple area and was apparently connected by a subterranean tunnel with the Virgin’s Well (5:2<\/span>) according to Bernard. The water was conducted artificially to the pool of Siloam.<\/P> Washed <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist direct middle (cf. <\/SPAN><\/span>), apparently bathing and not merely washing his eyes.<\/P> Came seeing <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Jesus had healed him. He was tested by the demand to bathe his eyes. <\/P> <\/p>\n Wash [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Wash the eyes. See on Act 16:33<\/span>. <\/P> Siloam. By Rabbinical writers, Shiloach : Septuagint, Silwam : Vulgate and Latin fathers, Siloe. Josephus, generally, Siloa. In scripture always called a pool or tank, built, and not natural. The site is clearly identified in a recess at the southeastern termination of Zion, near the junction of the valley of Tyropoeon with that of the Kidron. According to Dr. Thomson, it is a parallelogram about fifty – three feet long and eighteen wide, and in its perfect condition must have been nearly twenty feet deep. It is thus the smallest of all the Jerusalem pools. The water flows into it through a subterraneous conduit from the Fountain of the Virgin, and the waters are marked by an ebb and flow. Dr. Robinson witnessed a rise and fall of one foot in ten minutes. The conduit has been traversed by two explorers, Dr. Robinson and Captain Warren. See the account of Warren’s exploration in Thomson, “Southern Palestine and Jerusalem,” p. 460. On the word pool, see on 5 2. <\/P> Sent. The Hebrew word means outflow (of waters); missio, probably with reference to the fact that the temple – mount sends forth its spring – waters. Many expositors find a typical significance in the fact of Christ ‘s working through the pool of this name. Thus Milligan and Moulton, after noting the fact that the water was drawn from this pool for pouring upon the altar during the Feast of Tabernacles; that it was associated with the “wells of salvation” (Isa 12:3<\/span>); and that the pouring out of the water symbolized the effusion of spiritual blessing in the days of the Messiah, go on to say : “With the most natural interest, therefore, the Evangelist observes that its very name corresponds to the Messiah; and by pointing out this fact indicates to us what was the object of Jesus in sending the man to these waters. In this, even more distinctly than in the other particulars that we have noted, Jesus, in sending the man away from Him, is keeping Himself before him in everything connected with his cure. Thus, throughout the whole narrative, all attention is concentrated on Jesus Himself, who is the Light of the world, who was ‘sent of God ‘ to open blind eyes.” See also Westcott and Godet.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And said unto him,”<\/strong> (kai eipen auto) “And he said directly to him,” with concern or compassion for him, Mat 14:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,”<\/strong> (hupage nipsai eis ten kolumbethran tou Siloam) “You go, wash in your own behalf, in the pool of Siloam,” wash for your own benefit or profit. The term Siloam means “sent” or commissioned, and means to flow gently, move gently, used Neh 3:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) ”(Which is by interpretation, Sent.)”<\/strong> (ho hermenetuetai apestalmenos) “Which is translated as having been sent, commissioned, or mandated.” Jesus as the water of life, river of life, flowed forth from the throne of God, as that Rock of which Israel drank in the desert, and He is yet that healing, flowing fountain of life, Isa 55:1-3<\/span>; 1Co 10:4<\/span>; Rev 22:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “He went his way therefore, and washed,”<\/strong> (apelthen oun kai enipsato) “Then he went and washed himself,” as he was told to do, and where he was told to do it, following the principle of Mary’s instructions at the marriage feast in Galilee, where He performed His first miracle, when she said to the servants, “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it,” Joh 2:5<\/span>; Joh 2:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “And came seeing.”<\/strong> (kai elthen blepon) “And he came seeing,” looking about, as Naaman did when he followed Elisha’s instructions to dip seven times in Jordan, 2Ki 5:10-16<\/span>. Each returned for faithful obedience, Jas 1:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n This miracle became an occasion for the Pharisees to doubt the supernatural miracle done before their temple gate, and to question the historical testimony of his being born blind in the first place, in spite of the testimony of: 1 ) His parents, 2) His neighbors, and 3)The responsible blind man himself as now further recounted:<\/p>\n 7. Go, wash in the pool of Siloam. Unquestionably, there was not, either in the clay, or in the water of Siloam, any power or fitness for curing the eyes; but Christ freely made use of those outward symbols, on various occasions, for adorning his miracles, either to accustom believers to the use of signs, or to show that all things were at his disposal, or to testify that every one of the creatures has as much power as he chooses to give them. But some inquire what is meant by the clay composed of dust and spittle, and they explain it to have been a figure of Christ, because the dust denotes the earthly nature of the flesh, and the spittle, which came from his mouth, denotes the Divine essence of the Word. For my part, I lay aside this allegory as being more ingenious than solid, and am satisfied with this simple view, that as man was at first made of clay, so in restoring the eyes Christ made use of clay, showing that he had the same power over a part of the body which the Father had displayed in forming the whole man. Or, perhaps, he intended to declare, by this sign, that it was not more difficult for him to remove the obstruction, and to open the eyes of the blind man, than to wash away clay from any man whatever; and, on the other hand, that it was as much in his power to restore sight to the man as it was to anoint his eyes with clay I prefer the latter interpretation. <\/p>\n As to the pool of Siloam, he perhaps ordered the blind man to wash in it, in order to reprove the Jews for not being able to discern the power of God when present; as Isaiah reproaches the men of his time, that they <\/p>\n despise the waters of Siloam, which flow softly, (Isa 8:6<\/span>,) <\/p>\n and prefer rapid and impetuous streams. This was also the reason, I think, why Elisha ordered Naaman the Syrian to go and wash in Jordan, (2Kg 5:10<\/span>.) This pool, if we may believe Jerome, was formed by waters which flowed at certain hours from Mount Zion. <\/p>\n Which, if you interpret it, means Sent. The Evangelist purposely adds the interpretation of the word Siloam; because that fountain, which was near the temple, daily reminded the Jews of Christ who was to come, but whom they despised when he was exhibited before them. The Evangelist, therefore, magnifies the grace of Christ, because he alone enlightens our darkness, and restores sight to the blind. For the condition of our nature is delineated in the person of one man, that we are all destitute of light and understanding from the womb, and that we ought to seek the cure of this evil from Christ alone. <\/p>\n Let it be observed that, though Christ was present then, yet he did not wish to neglect signs; and that for the sake of reproving the stupidity of the nation, which laid aside the substance, and retained only an empty shadow of signs. Besides, the astonishing goodness of God is displayed in this respect, that he comes of his own accord to cure the blind man, and does not wait for his prayers to bestow help. And, indeed, since we are by nature averse to him, if he do not meet us before we call on him, and anticipate by his mercy us who are plunged in the forgetfulness of light and life, we are ruined. <\/p>\n (7) Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.<\/strong>Comp. Notes on Joh. 5:2<\/span> (Bethesda), and on Luk. 13:4<\/span> (the tower in Siloam). The locality is almost without doubt that now known by the Arabic form of the same name, the Birket Silwn,<\/em> which is in the lower Tyropon valley, between the Temple mountain and Mount Zion. It is about a quarter of a mile from the present city wall, but in the time of our Lord the wall extended up to it (Jos. Wars,<\/em> v. 4, 1; so the Antonine Itinerary<\/em> in the fourth century). The place is frequently mentioned by Josephus, and there is every reason to believe that in the present pool we have the Siloah of Neh. 3:15<\/span>, the Shiloah of Isa. 8:6<\/span>, and the Siloam of the present passage. The form of the word here used by St. John is that found in the Greek translation of both the Old Testament passages.<\/p>\n The words wash in mean literally, wash into,<\/em> that is, wash so that the clay from the eyes will pass into the tank.<\/p>\n The attempt to show that in the waters of Siloam, too, we have an ordinary remedial agent, must be abandoned, at least as far as regards blindness. The command recalls that to Naaman the Syrian (2Ki. 5:10<\/span>), and not improbably recalled it to the mind of the blind man. In any case, it is a further stage in his spiritual education. It is a demand on the faith which realises the presence of the Power to heal. The place is chosen, perhaps, as a well-known spot, or as one at some little distance, so as to afford time for reflection and a test for obedience. It may be, however, that there is another reason for the choice. The pool of Siloam was bound up with all the religious feelings of the Feast of Tabernacles. A solemn procession went each morning to it, and carried water from it to the Temple. That water had already led to the teaching of the gift of the Spirit to every man who should receive the Messiah (see Notes on Joh. 7:37<\/span> et seq.<\/em>),<\/em> uttered, perhaps, on this very day (comp. Joh. 9:1<\/span>). There would be attached, then, to the pool of Siloam a sacred significance that would be in itself a help to faith.<\/p>\n Which is by interpretation, Sent.<\/strong>St. John sees a significance even in the name. The sending of the waters of this intermittent spring had given it the -name Siloam. Popular belief connected the moving of the waters with the presence of an angel who gave them their healing virtue. There was One then present who was the source of all life and power to heal, and He was Himself the sent of God. So He had taught men<\/em> in words which had fixed themselves on St. Johns mind (Joh. 3:17<\/span>; Joh. 3:34<\/span>; Joh. 5:36<\/span>; Joh. 5:38<\/span>; Joh. 7:29<\/span>; Joh. 8:42<\/span>). So the prophet Isaiah had spoken of His work (Isa. 61:1<\/span>), and He had quoted that prophecy of His own work with the remarkable addition from the LXX., and recovering of sight to the blind. (Comp. Notes on Mat. 11:5<\/span>, Luk. 4:18<\/span>; and Isa. 42:7<\/span>.) So He was later called the Apostle (the One sent) of our profession (Heb. 3:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n And came seeing.<\/strong>These words need no Note for the reader who will pause to think of them, but we often pass over them without remembering that a whole world of visual objects now first burst upon the mind of him who was healed. We can only know in part what a revelation this was, but we may by thought realise it in some degree. There is no reference to his coming again to our Lord. He returned apparently to his usual dwelling, and this agrees with the mention of neighbours in the following verse.<\/p>\n 7<\/strong>. <\/strong> Go, wash<\/em> An act of faith is the condition to his salvation. Had he refused, he might have been doomed to perpetual darkness. <\/p>\n Pool of Siloam<\/em> This is a pool or a small pond, in an oblong form, at the lower end of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, overlooked by the wall of Mount Zion. Its sides are built up with stones, and a column stands in its middle, indicating that a chapel was once built over it. It is in length fifty-four feet, by eighteen in breadth. It is fed, probably, by water from the temple mount. <\/p>\n By interpretation, Sent<\/em> By this explanation of the meaning of the word, we understand the Evangelist to indicate that Jesus selected this pool because its name was significant. As Christ himself is the fountain, sent <\/em> from God, by which our nature is purified, so Siloam is the fountain, sent <\/em> from the mount of God’s temple, by which the man is washed from both his blindness and his clay. The man was sent <\/em> by the Sent <\/em> to the Sent.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n The word Siloam here is in the Hebrew Shiloah, ; the h <\/em> being changed to m <\/em> for Greek euphony. But Kuinoel, like many other critics, affirms that Shiloah <\/em> is not truly the Hebrew for Sent, <\/em> but Shaluah; <\/em> and so claims that this parenthesis is not John’s, but an interpolation. Tholuck, however, maintains “that the yod in Shiloah <\/em> is to be regarded as daghesh forte resolved, and that the word is, consequently, to be regarded either as abstract, <\/em> or equivalent to effusion, <\/em> that is, aqueduct; <\/em> or may even be like the form passively equivalent to ‘the one sent.’“<\/p>\n ‘Then he said to him ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’, which is by interpretation ‘sent’.’<\/p>\n The author draws attention to Siloam as meaning ‘sent’. We are thus almost certainly intended to see it as meaning that, just as the pool which was ‘sent’ caused the blind man to see, so the One Who was sent from God was at work opening the spiritual eyes of men. Furthermore the pool of Siloam was where the water was drawn for the ceremonies at the Feast of Tabernacles (see on John 7<\/span>) and this linked it with the coming work of the Holy Spirit, and the times of refreshing, symbolised by those waters, when the eyes of the blind would be opened (Isa 29:17<\/span>; Isa 35:5<\/span> compare also Isa 42:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n It is very probable therefore that it was this also which was to be seen as ‘sent’. The man blind from birth had met the light of the world Who was ‘sent’ to drench (baptise) men with the Holy Spirit that God has promised to ‘send’ into the world, and as a result he saw.<\/p>\n ‘So he went and washed, and came back seeing.’<\/p>\n The blind man was obedient to Jesus’ words. It was no simple matter for a blind man go to the pool but he did what Jesus told him to do without question. After a life of hopelessness he had met Jesus and hope had arisen in his heart, a hope accompanied by faith. How simple the words are. He responded obediently to Jesus and stumbled on his way to the pool of Siloam and washed his eyes, and at once the miracle happened, he could see. The world’s blindness must be dealt with in the same way. The water of the word of God can wash away the blindness and darkness, and open the eyes of the blind and of those who sit in darkness (Eph 5:26<\/span>). But just as the blind man had to go and wash so those who would have their eyes open must go to the word of God and partake of it in responsive faith. Then they too will come back seeing.<\/p>\n Joh 9:7<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Concerning these waters, the evangelist observes, that their name Siloam, <\/em>or according to the Hebrew orthography, Shiloah, <\/em>signifies a thing that is sent. <\/em>This remark, Grotius, Dr. Clarke, and others, think was designed to insinuate that Christ’s command to the blind man was symbolical, teaching him, that he owed his cure to the Messiah, one of whose names was Shiloh, <\/em>the sent of God.<\/em>The waters here mentioned, came from a spring that was in the rocks of mount Zion, and were gathered into two great basons: the lower called the pool of fleeces, <\/em>and the upper Shiloah, <\/em>Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/p>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n